- prejudice to good order and discipline can be assumed or implied based on the misconduct of the accused
- to obtain a conviction for producing, possessing, and distributing child pornography charged under Article 134, UCMJ, the government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that appellant engaged in the alleged conduct and that the general article’s “terminal element” was satisfied, meaning that the conduct either: (1) prejudiced good order and discipline in the armed forces; (2) was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces; or (3) was otherwise a noncapital crime or offense
- in this case, where the government charged appellant with producing, possessing, and distributing child pornography under Article 134, UCMJ, and elected to charge only that appellant’s conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline as the terminal element, appellant’s child pornography-related convictions under the general article were not legally sufficient where the government failed to proffer any evidence at appellant’s court-martial that demonstrated how appellant’s behavior prejudiced good order and discipline, and instead focused on proving the solely that appellant had engaged in the alleged misconduct
CAAF Opinion Digest · III.AA.95 · Crimes Offenses on/after 1 Jan 2019
Article 134: Child Pornography
Offenses committed on or after 1 January 2019 (post-2016 amendment) — opinions from the 2021 Term of Court forward.
1 digested opinion, 2021–2021 Terms
2021 (October Term)
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IIIAA95 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).